Let’s Get Real!

One of the major complaints among some of church members is that they cannot be themselves, cannot speak their minds and cannot ask genuine questions without being ostracized, looked down upon or shunned. That more conservative members will not put up with nor tolerate anything that isn’t 100% correlated, faith-promoting or doctrinal.

And it is true that in many Sunday School classes, for example, any in depth discussion or alternate viewpoint is often shut down due to “lack of time.” Which can be a veiled excuse for “let’s not get into it.”

I have the solution.

Just stop it.

It’s time to get real. The only way to change the situation is to let the questions and comments fly. And let the consequence follow. What’s the worst that can happen?

If people choose to look down on folks that have honest concerns and questions, it is their problem. The more people express themselves, the more the judgmental, self-righteous will just have to get used to it.

Now, I am not saying to be combative or unconcerned about the feelings of others. We should still be polite and appropriate for the setting we are in.

Let’s face it, there is a time and place for everything, but, we have to put an end to the pat answers, trite testimony-bearing and the superfluous responses. After all,

“…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: “(1 Peter 3:15)

Post navigation

34 thoughts on “Let’s Get Real!”

I already left b/c of this very reason. By and large, church members don’t want to “get real.” Many are just plain too afraid. I can take bad history and even some crappy policies, but what I won’t stand for is having to keep my mouth shut when I know something isn’t right.

I don’t think many members really care all that much to make any changes. Truth takes a back seat to obedience in my experience. Until you get rid of that attitude you have nothing.

“Are you in? Do it this Sunday and tell us how it goes.”
I’ll tell you what will eventually happen: you’ll wind up in the Bishop’s office having to explain yourself.

“Sometimes I think we don’t create a very hospitable climate for questions in our Sunday School classes, Relief Societies, and priesthood quorums. Sometimes we give people the very clear message that there’s something wrong with them if they don’t know something already, or if they don’t see it the same way as the teacher or understand it to the same degree as the rest of the class.
So people lie. They say they understand when they really don’t. Or they say they agree when they really don’t. Or they find one point they can agree on and swallow the four points they disagree on. Or they suppress the perfectly wonderful questions they have, because they’re afraid that the questions may sound accusatory or faithless. As a result, no miracles happen. . . . If we don’t have questions, there won’t be any miracles for us. I don’t know about you, but I need miracles in my life. I want miracles in my life. I hunger and thirst for miracles in my life. So I think I’d better ask questions—questions from the heart, questions that hurt, questions with answers that I’m afraid will hurt.”
-Chieko Okazaki, Disciples, p. 229-230

The problem with trying to discuss thorny issues during relatively short lessons is that often the person asking the question assumes facts not in evidence or the points being raised really do call for lengthy, in depth discussion. Just about every controversial subject on the bloggernacle (plurality, ordination, and so forth) take up thousands of words, and still there is no resolution. How would that translate into a classroom setting where a teacher has about 45 minutes to present his or her material. Class participation is welcome, yet how much could we get done if essentially, we all showed up with no teacher, no lesson planned, no objective, and just sat in a circle and discussed our philosophies. That’s not what church is for. We can “get real” on the bloggernacle and in private conversations with fellow members, all we want outside of the three hour block. I’ve seen plenty of times when a member asks a sincere question. I’ve also seen plenty of times when the question is not sincere, and the asker has no intention of listening to the comments made afterward. What the OP calls “pat answers, trite testimony-bearing and the superfluous responses” is another person’s sincere, heart felt belief. I don’t go to church on Sunday to hear the baloney that is preached on the bloggernacle. I go to learn how to be Christlike. If getting real leads me to Christ, then fine. My guess is that the intent behind “getting real” is to divide rather than unite.

Similar to The Brother of Bared, I no longer attend any but sacrament meetings. This is due in large part to the responses (chagrin, anger, remonstrations) I would get to some of my liberal non-TBM questions, thoughts, conclusions, or knowledge.

However, a not insignificant factor was my concern that I would damage some ignorant, “weak” member’s faith. My concern was substantially informed by I Corinthians 8. What follows is an excerpt from an non-KJV “translation”

1 Corinthians: CHAPTER 8
“… But this knowledge of ours is not shared by all men. For some, who until now have been used to idols, eat the meat as meat really sacrificed to a god, and their delicate conscience is thereby injured. Now our acceptance of God is not a matter of meat. If we eat it, that does not make us better men, nor are we the worse if we do not eat it. **You must be careful that your freedom to eat meat does not in any way hinder anyone whose faith is not as robust as yours. For suppose you with your knowledge of God should be observed eating meat in an idol’s temple, are you not encouraging the man with a delicate conscience to do the same? Surely you would not want your superior knowledge to bring spiritual disaster to a weaker brother for whom Christ died? And when you sin like this and damage the weak consciences of your brethren you really sin against Christ.** This makes me determined that, if there is any possibility of meat injuring my brother, I will have none of it as long as I live, for fear I might do him harm.”

While I don’t agree with Paul regarding “sin against Christ,” for 25+ years after I stopped attending GD class I continued to attend HP class–assuming that these men had been in leadership and could handle some non-TBM discussions (“the truth”). But then all older men, including new converts, began attending HP class.

I couldn’t long tolerate biting my tongue. Was I wrong to stifle my honest attempts to question, learn, and teach…and then stop attending altogether out of this concern?

“how much could we get done if essentially, we all showed up with no teacher, no lesson planned, no objective, and just sat in a circle and discussed our philosophies.”

I don’t think Jeff is asking for that, so this is a strawman argument.

“The problem with trying to discuss thorny issues during relatively short lessons is that often the person asking the question assumes facts not in evidence or the points being raised really do call for lengthy, in depth discussion. Just about every controversial subject on the bloggernacle (plurality, ordination, and so forth) take up thousands of words, and still there is no resolution.”

Therein is the problem. Why does there have to be a resolution? If class members are wrestling through the issues, there is growth in the individuals, growth that leads to individual inspiration and revelation. It reminds me of what Richard Bushman once said. He said that in Manhattan, they had some great discussion where they asked lots of questions. In Utah County where he lives now, they don’t have good discussions, but everyone has all the answers.

I was most upset with myself last week in GD and EQ. In GD they read Ephesians 5:22-33 about the wife submitting to the husband. I REALLY wanted to just say, “I have to admit I don’t get this scripture when I hear what the current prophets and apostles are saying.” I admit I chickened out.
Then in EQ someone started really jumping on the “go do your calling/HT/splits with the missionaries etc. and it ALWAYS works out.” I was ready to make a comment about balance as you do enough of those and there is no way you won’t have some impact on your family, but the conversation quickly turned and we ran out of time.
I left Sunday more determined that I am going to at least say “I have problems reconciling this” and things like that. I am not going to bring up hard historical issues, but I am going to try and make sure others feel they are not alone when they don’t (or can’t) believe 110% of everything.

IDIAT’s response is the exact reason that I keep my mouth shut whenever I have any questions or concerns. There is a majority of people in my ward who believe that anyone who has a real question that doesn’t follow what’s expected in the lesson is trying to divide. If you don’t agree with the rest of us, you’re trying to divide. That kind of unity is surface unity. It isn’t the unity that should exist in the body of Christ. I think we should all strive for the unity that comes from discussing and learning together and loving each other because of our differences. When we refuse to allow differing opinions in our Sunday School classes we’re effectively telling people they can only be a part of the body of Christ if they think and believe exactly the right way, or as long as they hide any variance.

I’ve never had problems from fellow classmates though I have had them from teachers who did not appreciate the interruption.

One thing I’ve tried to do is no be “that guy” — you know the one. Whether it is the guy who just know the twelve tribes are in the hollow earth, or anything else that shows he know more and is 100% right where he disagrees with any standard narrative.

I’ve always felt that Sunday School was a place to discuss correlated, safe doctrine which should be paletable to a very general LDS audience. If you want real answers, you need to look for them outside of church. Church is supposed to be a safe, inspiring place, not a place to experience trials and tests to your testimony. That can happen outside.

Joseph Smith taught polygamy, but he didn’t teach it in church. He taught it in private, where he could be extremely selective with an explosive topic. Like Joseph Smith, we need to keep polygamy, polyandry and the like out of church, while at the same time having more private, out of church discussions on the topic.

I’m in. In fact, I do this every Sunday. I think asking questions with the right intention (trying to get at the truth of things,not being snarky or putting others down) is what the Savior requires of us. I suppose that means I agree and disagree with Nate, as I believe that church is supposed to be an inspiring place, but it should be a safe place for those with serious questions as well as those without them. If we can’t raise serious questions in the church of Jesus Christ, if we can’t go there for answers as well as for comfort, where can we go? The shaming of people with questions is, IMHO, completely against what the Savior would model.

Also, trying to quiet people by suggesting that their questions could damage someone’s testimony is really below the belt. We are all responsible for our own beliefs/faith/testimonies and it is wrong to make someone else bear that burden just because they say or ask something that makes other people uncomfortable.

Church is supposed to be a safe, inspiring place, not a place to experience trials and tests to your testimony.

Interestingly enough, many people say that church is precisely *not* a safe, inspiring place, because they cannot expect to be comforted in the trials and tests to their testimonies from other sources. Since church is insulated from all of that, it is not a balm.

Getting into difficult subjects can ultimately be rewarding if you find out other people struggle (or have struggled) with the same thing, but then you need a teacher or other authoritative figure to bring it together at the end. Either being able to shed a bit more light on the subject to help others better deal with the issue, or even just to confirm that taking the effort to engage the issues are themselves evidence of a sincere desire to understand the gospel, which is something to be encouraged. The problem lies when you have a teacher/leader who is either ignorant on the problem or immediately assumes you’re just trying to create contention (or both). With a volunteer teaching and leading force, there is no guarantee anyone in that room can intelligently and compassionately help sincere questioners.

Sometimes you just get shut down. When I was teaching, I wasn’t afraid with engaging in difficult subjects if I felt they were pertinent to the lesson or current events. But, there was one time the Bishop told me to stop and move on with the lesson. I had purposefully brought the subject up because I knew someone in the room was struggling with it, but the bishop felt it had taken away the Spirit and needed to end. While I respected his decision, I did have some people come up afterwards and express frustration that we didn’t get the opportunity for discussion. Afterwards he came to my house and explained his reasoning. I attempted to explain why I had brought the subject up, but it was clear he was unaware of the issues at hand and felt they were irrelevant. People just needed to feel the spirit and hear testimonies of Christ at church, so that needed to be my focus. It was a good point.

And… the fear of planting seeds of doubt is very real. Chances are the issues you struggle with are issues that have caused others to leave the church. Even though someone’s decision to leave is their own, it is understandable to be concerned you bringing up difficult issues may have played a part. Many of my BYU professors were very aware that what they were teaching could be difficult for some members. Often they addressed the issue on the first day of class, bluntly stating that they personally didn’t have a problem reconciling their profession with their testimony. *However,* they had seen many students run into trouble with the dissonance. While they needed to learn the theories to pass the class, the subject matter was not worth losing their testimony over.

Nate,
I experience trials and tests to my testimony almost every week at church. Do I not also need a safe, inspiring place? I know I’m not the only person who feels this way.
Also, where is this mysterious “outside” where real people are having these face to face discussions? If the Church believes that these discussions are important then they would create a place for them. I do not know of such a place that is supported by the church. The only place I know of is the bloggernacle which often received negative references in general conference.
How am I supposed to find people I can discuss questions with if no one is allowed to disturb the correlated safety of church?
We can’t say that there is a time and a place for these discussions and that Sunday School is not it if we haven’t created a different time and place for these discussions.

Also, not being “real” can be a protective mechanism. A tasteless joke in a discussion that is extremely sensitive to you can lead to the thoughts, “I never want to walk into that room again.” If discussions about difficult topics go bad, it can end up causing even more damage to those who need comfort the most.

A happy hubby – unlike you, I couldn’t help myself regarding the scripture about submitting. Most people tried to smooth it over and make it sound nice. My comment was a) what is the Greek translated word it comes from and b) as it stands we just don’t talk like this now and it’s probably better we rely on more recent counsel regarding walking side by side.

In the past year or so I have been shut down many times. I’m in a very conservative ward and do with rather liberal leanings I stand out. I’ve been subject to behaviour that, in my workplace, would have amounted to bullying be harrassnent. I’m also rather thick skinned so I can hold my own.

Church for me is a battle. All we get is the fully correlated garbage – no thought, no ability to think outside the box.

Interestingly, a couple of people I thought were conservative are a bit more liberal than I thought.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. When the balance of power shifts from the majority who love the correlated gospel, to the minority who are troubled by the correlated gospel, then it will be appropriate to ask these difficult, non-correlated questions in a correlated setting. Until then, as Paul said, “why trouble they for whom Christ died?”

Doubts and paradoxes have an important role in people’s lives, but their shadowy, clandestine nature is part of the paradox. Doubts must be hidden away for the doubt to be true and powerful doubt. Solitude is a gospel principle, the solitude of Abraham as he led Isaac up the hill, the solitude of Christ on the cross, and the solitude of the doubter. Doubts are something individuals struggle with, but the church must not doubt. The individual must doubt within the church, not the church itself. If the church were to embrace doubt within it’s correlated understanding, the faith of its majority membership would flow out of it like the sinking Titanic.

Nate – I’m not trying to pick a fight, but church members shouldn’t be treated like little kids. If you really have to protect “the needs of the many,” b/c they might doubt and their faith if fragile, what does that say about the faith? I’m sorry to be blunt, but do you actually believe this crap?

Nate said: “The individual must doubt within the church, not the church itself. If the church were to embrace doubt within it’s correlated understanding, the faith of its majority membership would flow out of it like the sinking Titanic.”

Why can’t the church doubt? And what is so important about having faith in a correlated understanding – depending on the issue – if it is wrong? What you are advocating is protecting a faith against truth, apparently at all costs. I will never accept that.

Unfortunately, your attitude is all too prevalent in the church. I’m not looking for an excuse, but it tells me I made the right decision in leaving.

Adult Sunday School class is GD – Gospel Doctrine – not Church Doctrine. Gospel Doctrine is found in and throughout eternity. The four sets of scriptures are the closest physical knowledge of them. The Holy Ghost is our closest understanding of the scriptures. There is a separate class for New Members. In my opinion they should not attend this longer than three months. After three months anythings goes. The teacher might feel to be lighter on some subjects than on others at certain times.

Nate, It is not necessarily about doubt, but a different understanding. In my ward 70% of the oldies are conservative, but because progressive views are not acceptable, they believe that they are the righteous ones, and any who question what they accept is less righteous, and probably doubting.

Were we able to be more open we would all realise there is more than one understanding of how to live the Gospel.

We would all like to be accepted for who we are, most wards only accept one version of the Gospel, in public.

Been in and will continue in, mindful, of course, of your caveats: non-combative and concerned about others’ feelings and polite and appropriate for the setting. Love is the commandment and answer that I have no questions about.

Of course, the ward patriarchy’s latest tactic in taking care of me (or not, it could be my own paranoia) was to call me to Primary for me and my daughter to teach, (CTR 4&5 combined) which is awesome. In Sunday’s lesson, I will change all allusions to just HF to HPs, which will be about as effective as asking why women can’t have the priesthood like men members do in GD.

I keep changing the way I think because I am cobtinually being led to this conclusion that we keep looking past the mark. I have been paying particular attention to a gentleman in our ward who has autism, lives alone, and relatively a very very simple life. But, he lives the gospel to an extremely high degree. His committment to Christ is above all the rest of us. But why? We home teach him monthly and whenever we go over there he is playing a CD of BoM stories, gospel songs, a video of conference, etc. The feeling we get is extremely peaceful. Everyone pretty much looks beyond him as a type to aspire to. This is where we could really learn something and perhaps need to. We keep looking for all this meat when in reality we are not capable of understanding it ourselves because we havent got the milk part digested yet. We still need to learn the importance of basic obedience, listenibg, inspiration, etc. We are still being milked.

I taught Gospel Principkes for a few years and through much study I realized that we honestly do not know and understand the very basic parts of our gospel. We keep looking beyond the mark not willing to take the small steps necessary to truly learn. So, we keep doing it over and over again.

Geoff Aus, I agree that we could be more tolerant of a diversity of views and approaches to the gospel in GD. Im just saying that protecting boundaries is also important.

Rich, it is precisely because GD is done in church, that it must submit to the church’s imperfect view of the gospel. It’s a question of authority, not truth. It’s a discussion of truth moderated by the church to a specific end, which is that the church has chosen to see its role as being exclusively faith-promoting inside church, and apologetic outside of church.

There be dragons. There are unresolvable contradictions which can only be survived by being ignored, by going around them. You may have to confront the dragon yourself, but the church is a refuge from dragons.

I most often, as with this topic, disagree with the position Nate does such a good job of stating. If we limit our discussions and questions within the narrow limits of the correlated manuals–and the teacher simply pushing to finish his or her lesson, rather than trying to help people learn, then the second 2 hours of church on Sunday is little (very little) more than chanting a repetitive mantra, or spinning a prayer wheel.

Yes, “real” discussions and new information, insights, and opinions are very problematic in the formal church setting. But with the Internet-driven “revelations” (double-entendre) members are (some very slowly) being exposed to, along with our official, though semi-hidden church essays, there is no other venue as (potentially) safe and balanced for the currently ignorant and uninformed to get less ignorant.

I was gone all weekend so I didn’t get to participate like I would have. But as i see it, it breaks down this way.

1. Those who complain about other people, no matter what.
2. Those who say they have tried it and were shot down.
3. Those who will try to be real and see what happens.
4. Those who just seem to want to be victims.

What is interesting is that it seems some want to make a major disruptive statement rather than just a simple a question or a comment.

The lesson was on Elder Ballard’s talk where he derided “Alternate voices” on the internet that painted a less than flattering portrait of church history. In priesthood meeting, I remarked that I really enjoyed the church’s new essays, especially the new one this week that said that women used to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and commented how the church has produced these new essays and have been approved by both the Q12 and FP. The comment went over very well!

I wasn’t able to get real this week. I had a crying baby all through Sunday School and since it was ward conference in my ward, Relief Society was a member of the Stake Presidency giving a no questions talk style delivery about how women are more spiritual naturally than men. I didn’t think it would be a good idea to try and raise any questions when he didn’t intend any questions to be asked.

However, I told my husband about this blog post and he decided to do it too. In his priesthood meeting, the stake president got up and said, “I want you all to ask me any question you want. Anything is free game. Go.” So my husband asked if the stake was going to make any changes due to the new women and priesthood essays. The response he got was that there didn’t need to be changes. Women have always exercised the priesthood and will continue to do so in the current structure. He then said that when he and his wife walk out of the temple they both have the same authority and are equal. And when they get home, he presides.

So there you go. That’s my return and report. I’m going to try again next week.

I applaud the effort. Your husband did the right thing, if only to get the pat answers.

I am not naive enough to think the answers don’t get better until the questions keep coming.

I haven’t read the essays yet, only some of the commentary. So I need to do that.
I myself was in the Clerk’s office the last two hours conducting some normal business. So I didn’t get to do it either. I don’t really attend Sunday School anymore because I have a bunch of things to do, but I never had an issue making any comments in Priesthood.

“Rich, it is precisely because GD is done in church, that it must submit to the church’s imperfect view of the gospel. It’s a question of authority, not truth. It’s a discussion of truth moderated by the church to a specific end, which is that the church has chosen to see its role as being exclusively faith-promoting inside church, and apologetic outside of church.”

Not with me. I have the gift of the Holy Ghost. If I don’t feel right about something I don’t go along with it. I guess I’m kind of looked on as an apostate. At times a lot of people dislike the things I say. I suppose you can believe that. It is just the way it is and will remain. I don’t care whose running it.

The Latter-day Saints do not pray to the leaders, but they most certainly worship them. It’s not right.

Nate re 27, thanks for stating this.
I’m a very long time convert and I would certainly have welcomed anything more interesting going on at church. But I’ve lived in some far flung wards over time and witnessed some very weird stuff indeed. One ward I visited almost the whole ward tore each other to bits over time debating gospel doctrine without taking any clear leadership. Much as I chafe under correlation, I’d hate to have to witness that again.
And these days I’m very poor in spirit after many years of serving and dealing with family sickness. I go to church in an effort to get some healing, balm of Gilead. I don’t really care any more what any academic has to say, I really need a clear voice in whom I can trust to be, in principal, mostly correct. Some safe space.
Consequence of correlation for me though is that I rarely attend much of conference as I know it’s going to come around again and again…